Joe Morgan was an exceptionally good defensive Hall of Fame second baseman. Tuesday afternoon, he was an exceptionally defensive Hall of Fame voter.

For the third time in as many at-bats, the Baseball Hall of Fame Veterans Committee whiffed on voting anyone into the Hall, calling into question all kind of reasonable questions, like the usefulness of a committee that can’t find common ground, and whether the people on the committee – living Hall of Famers and winners of the Hall’s Spink and Frick Awards (for sportscasters and writers) – are the right ones to be making the decision.

Morgan, the former Reds second baseman that is also on the executive committee, bristled when those questions were lobbed his way during a conference call to discuss the vote, or non-vote if you’re a veteran fan of Hall candidates like Gil Hodges, Maury Wills and Ron Santo.

“I’m offended to be asked if the players are qualified. How are writers qualified? Saying we’re not qualified,” Morgan said, exasperated and angry. “Why are we being criticized? It’s unfair to characterize it that way just because we haven’t elected someone in six years. I definitely believe there are guys (on the ballot) who belong, and I vote for them each year. But there has to be a process.”

That’s the question: Is this the right process?

The veterans committee for the Hall of Fame has been a source of controversy since it began in the ’50s and change has been routine in the committee’s makeup and system. Putting the vote in the hands of current Hall of Famers in 2003 certainly seemed like a logical and good idea.

Except they’ve been unable to find the 75 percent required of the membership to elect anyone. The ballot has remained relatively static all three years (2003, 2005, 2007) and the vote totals consistent. The group shares information and statistics provided by the Hall but it never meets as a group, meaning whatever discussion is limited to phone calls, e-mails or chatter on the golf course or card shows.

We don’t really know if, say, Rollie Fingers does any homework on the candidates, or if Bruce Sutter has a clue who Carl Mays, Cecil Travis or Lefty O’Doul are, or if Rod Carew even bothers to think about it.

The Hall of Fame is planning to review the process at a meeting next month. While its execs may think the current system works, they’re disappointed there hasn’t been someone elected.

“The board wanted to watch the process for three cycles before discussing it,” said Jane Forbes Clark, chairwoman of the Hall. “We’ll evaluate the trends and discuss whether there should be any changes. We’re committed to having a veterans committee that has the same high standards (as the baseball writers).”

The writers by and large have been more than credible in their decisions, with nary a complaint about someone voted in. The only beef has usually been the high standard and annual vagaries of the voting.

The late Dodgers first baseman Hodges, for example, has received more votes than anyone in baseball history without being inducted. He finished third or fourth in the voting 10 of the 15 years he was on the ballot. He deserved those rankings, too. When he was nearing retirement, he stood tenth on the all-time home run list and had been part of seven National League and two World Series champions.

They all are in the Hall of Fame, and they all finished behind Hodges at one time in Hall voting.

No one wants to say the Hall of Famers aren’t doing their job, but the reality is that more than half of them played in the ’70s and ’80s, and very few of the candidates on the veterans’ ballot were active at the same time. There are less than 20 players who played in the ’50s and were contemporaries of Hodges and another Dodger great, Don Newcombe.

When the writers vote, the players on the ballot all have a reference point no greater than 20 years, the five years a player must be retired and the maximum of 15 years they can stay in the ballot. So most of the voters have some actual reference of the player’s ability.

Morgan admitted that the players have little if any knowledge of those on the separate ballot for non-playing candidates, like former Dodgers owner Walter O’Malley, umpire Doug Harvey and former general managers and execs.

“I’m as upset as anyone because there are guys I played against that deserve to be in,” Morgan said. “I voted for Wills, because he changed the game and brought back the era of Ty Cobb. I voted for Santo, who was overshadowed by Ernie Banks and Billy Williams. I voted for Hodges who was a cornerstone of the Dodgers in the ’50s. I argued that Jim Rice should be in.

“It’s not just up to me. I don’t think 75 percent is too high of a threshold. I just think it’s a difficult process.”

No one likes committees, period, but perhaps the answer, rather than throwing 40-plus names at the 84 voters, is to have the voters break into smaller committees and provide nominees.

I imagine if Hall contemporaries of Hodges, guys who played against him or saw him extensively (like Frick winner Vin Scully) in the ’50s, they could find a 75 percent consensus to nominate him for election by the entire group. Likewise for Santo and Hall of Famers from the ’60s.

Then the entire group would at least know the contemporaries of these candidates consider them worthy. It would be much easier for the voters to select from, say, five or six nominees and find a consensus than a ballot that features players ranging from Carl Mays, whose last year was 1929, and Jim Kaat, who was still pitching in 1983.

What Morgan are the players should know is that there’s common ground here; his defensive reaction to our criticism isn’t really that much difference than our defensiveness over favorites being kept out of a place we think they belong.

Join the Conversation

We invite you to use our commenting platform to engage in insightful conversations about issues in our community. Although we do not pre-screen comments, we reserve the right at all times to remove any information or materials that are unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable to us, and to disclose any information necessary to satisfy the law, regulation, or government request. We might permanently block any user who abuses these conditions.

If you see comments that you find offensive, please use the “Flag as Inappropriate” feature by hovering over the right side of the post, and pulling down on the arrow that appears. Or, contact our editors by emailing moderator@scng.com.